The politico-media complex ( PMC, also referred to as the political-media complex ) is a name that has been given to the close, systematized, symbiotic-like network[1] of relationships between a state'spolitical and ruling classes, its media industry, and any interactions with or dependencies upon interest groups with other domains and agencies, such as law (and its enforcement through the police[2]), corporations and the multinationals. The term PMC is often used to name, derogatively, the collusion between governments or individual politicians and the media industry in an attempt to manipulate rather than inform the people.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

There is recent evidence to suggest that newer media portals (as opposed to those outlets of "traditional" mainstream media [MSM]) are turning, more readily, to using the PMC framework in critical analysis and interpretation of media behavior. One notable example of this is with regards to the Leveson Inquiry.[10]

Before Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type in 1450, most information was delivered by town criers, ministers from the pulpit, or bartenders. Town criers spread information and news including royal edicts, police regulations, important community events and war news. These early methods of communication were often delivered by messengers on foot, and could be easily controlled by the ruling class.[11] With the invention of the printing press news began to be spread in writing. Corantos, which were semi-regular pamphlets that reported news, are an example of the early politico-media complex. Popular in England, corantos reported mostly foreign news, as the royal government attempted to control what domestic news reached the masses. Corantos eventually would become regular periodicals that were subject to less political control, and mark one of the earlier forms of industrialized media.[12]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".[13] Most of the international papers present in the world today are national papers re-edited for a wider audience.[citation needed] Because of this, there can be biases based on nationality.[improper synthesis?] In any publication there is some sort of bias just from what news is covered and what stories are shown at the forefront of the publication.[14][not in citation given]

Although print media in the West has suffered from declining advertising trends,[15] many newspapers and magazines in the Middle East continue to do well.[16] For countries in which the majority of the population does not have ready access to the Internet or television, newspapers and magazines are one of the few ways to get the news.[17] However, the independence from political influence, and dependability of newsprint is questionable in many countries. The Reporters Without BordersPress Freedom Index suggests that even in many first world countries the rights of the press are not fully respected, and that the press is not completely free to investigate or criticize the government, though the situation is far worse in third world or politically unstable nations.[improper synthesis?][18]

Newspapers, as seen here, are easily available in many parts of the world.

Newspapers and magazines do have a back and forth between readers and journalists. Some studies have shown that the print media are more likely to reinforce existing political attitudes of the masses than change them.[19]

Reporters Without Borders, an international non-governmental organization that promotes freedom of the press, produces an annual Press Freedom Index assessing countries' press freedom. Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said at the release of the 2009 Press Freedom Index, "It is disturbing to see European democracies such as France, Italy and Slovakia fall steadily in the rankings year after year [...] Europe should be setting an example as regards civil liberties. How can you condemn human rights violations abroad if you do not behave irreproachably at home? The Obama effect, which has enabled the United States to recover 16 places in the index, is not enough to reassure us."[18]

The press is censored in the People's Republic of China by the Golden Shield Project, known colloquially as the Great Firewall of China.[20]Reporters Without Borders ranks China's press situation as "very serious," the worst possible ranking on their five-point scale.[21] China's press was ranked 173rd out of 179 countries in the 2013 World Press Freedom Index.[22] The Chinese government maintains the legal authority to censor the press, and in defense of censorship claims that the Communist party in China has the most freedom of press, since there is no wealthy minority controlling it.[23]

Middle Eastern print media is mainly paid for by private funders, either a specific family or specific government party.[citation needed] Some Middle Eastern newspapers and magazines have been accused of having obvious political ties.[24] Many countries in the Middle East and Africa have harsh government restrictions as to what can be published when, for various reasons depending on political and economic circumstances.[improper synthesis?]Iran, ranked 174 out of 179 in 2013, is described as highly censored, as the Iranian government maintains strict control over much of the print and broadcast media and news websites.[22] Reporters Without Borders has said that journalists in Israel "enjoy real freedom of expression despite the existence of military censorship."[22] However, Professor Yoram Peri of the University of Maryland has said that Israel experienced a media control crackdown as the government censors coverage of military action coverage, displaying how governments often limit press freedom during times of war.[25][verification needed] According to Reporters Without Borders in 2009, Eritrea in Northern Africa is the worst ranked country for journalistic freedom. Eritrea is currently a one-party "transitional government" which has yet to enact its ratified constitution.[26] Other African countries at the bottom of the 2009 Press Freedom Index include Syria (165) and Somalia (164).[18] Both countries exhibit little journalistic freedom, and are both known[by whom?] for their unstable transitional governments and near constant warfare.[27][not in citation given]

Where newspapers used to represent an exclusive connection between readers and advertisers, print media must now compete with the power of the entire Internet.[28] Because of declining advertising revenue and shrinking audiences, print press has been described as declining.[15] Today a little more than half of Americans read a newspaper every day. However, a 2004 report notes that 55 million newspapers are still sold daily in the United States,[29] and newsprint still plays a significant role in the politico-media complex.[30]

In addition to economic struggles and readership decline, newsprint has also struggled with losing readers' trust. Surveys have found that people tend to trust newspapers less than other news media, in part because they believe that newspaper journalists are "isolated and out of touch" and motivated by commercial interests.[31] Most people believe their local and national news television stations more than their local and national newspapers.[31] The only news medium that people trust less than newspapers is print magazines.[31]

Some[who?] have speculated that the youth today are more visually inclined, and are therefore less likely to be influenced by written political news or propaganda.[31] One Pew Center study found that 28% of this generation read the paper on a given day, and average only 10 minutes of reading time. Harvard Professor Thomas Patterson has said: "What's happened over time is that we have become more of a viewing nation than a reading nation, and the internet is a little of both. My sense is that, like it or not, the future of news is going to be in the electronic media, but we don't really know what that form is going to look like."[32]

The early American radio industry was composed of commercial shipping companies that used radio for navigation, and amateur radio enthusiasts, who built radios at home.[33] This mixture of military, industry and community went unregulated until the Radio Act of 1912, which required all ships to use radio communication and keep a constant radio watch, amateur users to be licensed, and began regulating the use of wavelengths for radio transmissions.[34] This act represents one of the earliest interactions between the government and the radio media and also set a precedent for later radio legislation,[original research?] including the Radio Act of 1927, which established the Federal Radio Commission and added further regulation to radio users, both commercial and amateur.[35] Government regulation increased again with the American entrance into World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson ordered naval control of all radio stations, and ordered that amateurs cease all radio activity. Jonathan Reed Winkler, a noted WWI historian, said “It was only during World War I that the United States first came to comprehend how a strategic communications network-the collection of submarine telegraph cables, and long-distance radio stations used by a nation for diplomatic, commercial and military purposes- was vital to the global political and economic interests of a great power in the modern world.”[36] After World War I radio was introduced to broader civilian audiences when Westinghouse released the Aeriola Jr. in 1919, and the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) released the Radiola in 1920. The Aeriola Jr. and Radiola helped established a new channel for the politico-media complex to enter into thousand of American homes.[improper synthesis?] By 1919 the oldest licensed American radio station, KDKA, from Pittsburgh, PA began broadcasting regular music shows, and soon music, educational programming, sports coverage and eventually news coverage became popular.[37] Coverage of politics quickly caught on across the countries, as stations began covering elections, and reporting news of government actions. The close politico-media complex between government and radio was finalized in 1924[original research?] when the Republican and Democratic National Conventions were covered, and candidates made eve of election speeches, the first instance of radio broadcasting that was meant to affect the American political process.[38]

The numbers of radio users exploded, by 1935 about 2 in 3 American homes owned a radio.[39] Politicians quickly learned to reach these huge audiences.[citation needed] Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Fireside Chats are an example of the politico-media complex.[improper synthesis?] In his series of informal broadcasts from 1933 to 1944, Roosevelt developed a comforting rapport with the American public.[40] The Fireside Chats enabled the President to communicate directly to the public through one of the most popular media outlets of the time. Politicians would continue to use the radio in World War II, in which the radio was used primarily for news transmissions and the spread of propaganda. One example of radio propaganda came from Iva Toguri D'Aquino, Ruth Hayakawa, June Suyamawho, and Myrtle Lipton collectively known as Tokyo Rose. These women hosted anti-American programming intended to lower American soldiers' morale and illustrate the use of governments' use of the media to influence the public, or their enemies.[41] However, many people, such as Iva Toguri D'Aquino and Allied prisoners of war, were forced against their will to participate in these programs and worked hard to help Allied forces.[42]

After WWII and throughout the Cold War era, Democratic nations used long-range radio waves to broadcast news into countries behind the Iron Curtain or otherwise information-compromised nations. The American international radio program, the Voice of America, founded during World War II, became a critical part of Cold War era "public diplomacy," which aimed to spread democratic values, and popularize American policies abroad.[43] In 1950, President Harry S. Truman described the Cold War conflict as a "struggle, above all else, for the minds of men," which the American people would win by getting "the real story across to people in other countries." in other words, embracing the politico-media complex and using it to influence foreign listeners.[44] The Voice of America, operating under the authority of the United States Information Agency, supported programming in forty five languages, broadcasting over 400 hours of programming a week. Programming included unbiased news coverage, musical programs, and Special English broadcasts, which intended to help listeners master American English.[45] The VOA was not alone in its international broadcasting efforts, the United States Central Intelligence Agency supported Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, both propagandist radio networks intended to incite dissent against Communism.[46] Other nations also used international radio as propaganda, for example, Deutsche Welle, the German international radio program was a major broadcaster during the Cold War. By 1965 DW was airing 848 hours of programming to the Soviet Union and abroad and reached 5% of the USSR population weekly by 1980.[47][48] Deutsche Welle's mission to “promote understanding of Germany as an independent nation with its roots in European culture and as a liberal, democratic, constitutional state based on the rule of law.” illustrates German use of the politico-media complex.[49]

The Golden Age of Radio may have only lasted from 1935–1950, yet radio is still an active medium in the politico-media complex.[improper synthesis?] Today there is extensive radio programming on politics. One notable example is the Rush Limbaugh Show, which broadcasts the political commentary of Rush Limbaugh, referred to by listeners as "America's Truth Detector," the "Doctor of Democracy," and the "Most Dangerous Man in America."[50] The Rush Limbaugh Show has hosted numerous politicians, illustrating that politicians still use the radio to affect public opinion and the political process.[improper synthesis?] The now defunct Air America Media company provided progressive political commentary and news coverage and described itself as the "most recognized progressive talk radio network, providing an independent and unfiltered voice to a grateful listening nation".[51] Air America programs such as The Rachel Maddow Show, The Lionel Show, and Live in Washington with Jack Rice discussed recordings of politicians, host politicians as live guests, and acted as a connection between the political classes and the media.[52][53][54]

One of film's most powerful political and sociological forms is national cinema, for which there are entire books for individual countries and varying definitions.[55] Through the national cinema, ideological groups within specific countries can construct and reinforce their collective identities through film, as well as the identities of foreigners.[56][57]

Ulf Hedetoft has observed, "In the real world of politics and influence, certain nationalisms, cultures, ideas and interpretations are more transnationally powerful, assertive and successful than others. Where the less influential ones are not necessarily less self-congratulatory, they are certainly more inward-looking and always carry the label of national specificity."[58] He goes on, however, to say that these more transnationally powerful films actually become de-nationalized as a result of its "national-cultural currency" more widely and easily dispersed, mixing with other cultures, becoming either a "positive admixture" to other countries' cultures and identities or a "model for emulation."[58] He compares national cinema that undergoes such processes to English becoming a global lingua franca: the cultural sharing that results is hegemonic and the globalizing process is non-symmetrical.[58]

Propaganda is a way that politics can be represented and manipulated in film. Leif Furhammar and Folke Isaksson credit Russian producers Sergei Eisenstein and Vsevolod Pudovkin with the birth of propaganda aesthetics, for which the underlying assumption was that by manipulating cinematic images representing reality, they could manipulate spectators' concepts of reality.[59] Documentaries can be an even more effective form of propaganda than other genre films because the form of representation claims to mirror reality, making the manipulation of an audience that much more obscured.[59]

Such British newsreels as The Battle of the Somme of World War I were propaganda because they only showed the war from their own perspective, though it can be argued as being more honest and objective than more recent war documentaries (for they were edited without adjustments for dramatic or epic effect).[citation needed] Their photographers remained on their front lines, therefore presenting at least some truth.[59] According to Furhammar and Isaksson, it was Russian filmmakers who were the "masters of montage" who discovered film's power to create convincing illusion with cutting, rhythmic editing, and a didactic approach.[59]

When sound became possible, documentaries have been said to become more politically powerful with the use of speakers' voices and music.[59] In Nazi Germany, newsreels were just as important as feature films, while in Fascist Italy propaganda was mostly limited to documentaries.[59] A comparison of the first three installments of the American series Why We Fight and the Nazi documentary Sieg im Westen (Victory in the West) demonstrates how convincing even two opposing interpretations of the same events can be.[original research?] The first covers years in a couple of hours but its density disguises any omission of truth while the latter manages to depict war with real images but without blood or death. The same is found in documentaries about the Spanish Civil War.[60]

Falsification of political matter in documentaries can be created by lifting shots of events other than the one being dealt with and including them in the film so that they appear to be a part of the "reality" it claims to represent. The House Committee on Un-American Activities, for example, did this with Operation Abolition[61][62][63][64] in 1960 and Nazi newsreels depicted scenes of the Allies' defeat at Dieppe as real scenes from the Normandy invasion just a few days afterward to convince audience of the Reich's success.[citation needed] Audience's political affiliations can also be manipulated by actually staging the ostensibly real events as the 1944 Nazi picture The Führer Gives the Jews a Town did.[65]

World War II propaganda persisted 30 years after Dachau and Auschwitz such as in the thinly disguised fascist Italian film The Night Porter (1974). The film sought to legitimize the Nazis' genocide, while glorifying sadism, brutality, and machismo.[66] What amazes Henry Giroux, as he explains in "Breaking into the Movies," is that such blatant ideological messages were ignored by critics and the general public. That society may be incapable of testing the present against the past has implications for post-industrial oppression in the West and the strategies for resisting it. Despite the writings of Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, and Paulo Freire, the majority of Americans (at least) do not recognize how important class hegemony, or cultural domination, is in nations where populations are kept obedient to governments through ideological means.[67] He argues, "We are not only victims in the political and material sense, but are also tied emotionally and intellectually to the prevailing ruling-class norms and values."[67]

Though feature forms of propaganda lack documentaries' ostensible authenticity they can retain political power because directors' resources are less limited and they can create the reality of the film.[citation needed] They further compensate for lack of credibility with intensity.[60]

Despite the strong patriotism and nationalism of Americans, overtly political films have never been popular in the U.S. while films that have represented politics inconspicuously (such as in the form of propaganda) have remained popular.[68] Besides Frank Capra, no other major American filmmaker has seriously presented central themes of citizenship, participation, and responsibility in civic life amidst the complexities and corruption of the political world.[citation needed] While Capra sought to "develop a positive American cinematic vocabulary for political action" of the individual, as Charles Lindholm and John A. Hall describe, he ultimately failed.[69]

Capra's films are characterized by the same basic formula according to which the fundamental American values of fairness and honesty are challenged by the corruption and cruelty of politics.[citation needed] Ronald Reagan later extensively quoted the speech made by Mr. Deeds in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) in which he expresses his disgust with the complexities of politics and calls for individual goodness.[70] In his next film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, (1939) Capra reinforces the integrity and decency of the everyman who can transcend politics despite the power and crookedness of special interest groups.[71] After the hero of Meet John Doe realizes his need for others, he discovers and attempts to expose a fascist bidder for presidency planning to take advantage of his club support. He fails, however, in the midst of a violent mob with the depressing conclusion that the American public is a credulous crowd, susceptible to manipulation until the John Doe club members come begging his forgiveness and convince him to return to lead them.[72]

The ending of John Doe was unsuccessful amongst audiences and critics, discouraging any more political films for Capra and no films of merit after It's a Wonderful Life. Capra's ultimate fall from filmmaking and his advice that all American filmmakers should forget politics if they do not want to cut themselves in half signify the challenge filmmakers face when they attempt to criticize politics.[73] Lindholm and Hall observe that "the problems that defeated Capra have also undercut later attempts by American filmmakers to portray the complex relationship between individualism and citizenship in the United States" and claim that Hollywood has instead adopted the paranoia of politics that Capra had tried to overcome.[74] Consequently, political films in the U.S. have followed a trend of focusing on the flawed character of leaders, such a films like Citizen Kane (1940) and Nixon (1995).[75] Otherwise, they show the corruption of power, such as in The Candidate (1972) and Primary Colors (1998).[75] Other films, like A Face in a Crowd (1957) and All the King's Men (1949), follow the warning of John Doe. JFK (1991) and The Manchurian Candidate (1962), on the other hand, are based on the premise that democracy is an illusion and Americans are the ignorant pawns of various conspiracies involving, for example, the collusion between the government and the media.[75]

While films can be overtly political they can also depoliticize and oversimplify what is inherently complex, such as class struggle. Film, as it contributes to mass culture, has been criticized[according to whom?] for reducing the concept of class to stereotypes and predictable formulas that promote superficial understandings of ideology. Such misrepresentation and the ignorance that it promotes and perpetuates has been said to make audiences and citizens vulnerable to manipulative tactics of politicians in a reality that is complex.[76] One of the exceptions to oversimplification and ideological flattening in cinema has been said to be Norma Rae (1979), a film that presents a truer representation than is conventional of the complexities and politics of the working-class struggle and culture at the level of everyday life.[77]

The mass media have always influenced the political process, but never more so than with the innovation of the television.[78] As it is the most popular means by which voters obtain information on candidates and the news in general, television is a powerful means by which political groups can influence the public.[79]

This transformation first kicked off in the early 1960s, when newscast programs were increased to a thirty-minute programs, which allowed for greater news coverage and capacity. This expanded time slot allowed more focus to be given to presidential candidates, and network news soon became the center of national politics coverage. Because newscasts were national, the aired political campaigns were able to impact viewers across the country, enlarging the realm of influence.[79]

Rick Shenkman also analyzes the media’s impact on politics in his book, Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter, and observes that although American voters have gained significant political power over the last 50 years, their knowledge of politics and world affairs have decreased, which makes them more vulnerable to manipulation, and claims that "politicians have repeatedly misled voters" by "dumbing down of American politics via marketing, spin machines, and misinformation."[79]

Through setting news priorities, the news media play a significant role in determining the nation’s political reality; they provide the political information that will be regarded as fact and indicate to viewers how much importance to attach to each topic according to how much air time they dedicate to a given issue and the emphasis they place on it.[80] For example, television news is able to offer cues on topic salience by deciding what the opening story on the newscast will be or by altering the length of time devoted a story.[80] When these cues are repeated broadcast after broadcast, day after day, they may be able to effectively communicate the amount of importance broadcasters want each topic to have.[81]

In his book, Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India, Arvind Rajagopal examines Hindu nationalism during the late 1980s and 1990s in India. Rajagopal analyzed the role of the media in the public's construction of national, cultural, class, and regional identity. More specifically, he studied the hegemonic role of the Ram Janmabhumi movement and how the Ram project was played out on Indian national television. In his study, Rajagopal found that the Ram project played a role in "shaping discourses about national and cultural identities through the 1990s to the present" in India.[82]

Rajagopal investigated the cultural and political economy of television in contemporary India. His discussion of television revolves around the industrial and cultural politics of the serialized epic Ramayan. The serial epic, which generated unprecedented viewership, was based on the epic story of the Hindu god Ram and aired on Doordarshan, India's state-run television. Rajagopal made the argument that the national telecast of the Hindu religious epic Ramayan during the late 1980s provided much of the ideological groundwork for the launch of the Ram Janmabhumi movement. To defend his argument, Rajagopal stated that "television profoundly changes the context of politics".[82](p. 24)

The epic was broadcast on national television, sponsored by the ruling Congress government. Rajagopal argues that the Congress assumed that the mere sponsorship of the epic would aid its electoral future by bringing in the majority Hindu vote. Quite the opposite happened, however. Rather, it was the electorally weak Hindu nationalist political body, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that benefited from the serial's popularity. The BJP did so by avoiding the media effects framework attempted by Congress and instead articulating a complex relationship between the televised Hindu epic and its own Hindu nationalist beliefs. The BJP mobilized the public around the symbol of Ram, the lead figure of the serial, but strategically reworked the symbol via the Ram Janmabhumi movement to articulate cultural authenticity, national belonging, and a renewed sense of national purpose and direction. Articulating the temple restoration project within its electoral promise, the BJP, not surprisingly, went on to form the national government in the next general election.[82]p. 43 This illustrates that, as Rajagopal argues, television is capable of profoundly impacting politics.

Central to the BJP’s success was the party's strategic use of using both the media and the market, by creating merchandise such as stickers, buttons, and audio tapes centering on the key figure of the Ram. Rajagopal argues that the televised epic also dealt with the tension between the past and the present at many levels. This can be seen in the reworking of the epic story of the Ram to fit the conventions of modern commercial television. In addition to this, the epic was laced with twenty minutes of advertising both before and after the program, which helped the serial to reconstruct the past through technologies of the present.[82] This key fact highlights the power of advertisements in the media.

In the “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt,” Lila Abu-Lughod suggests that a nation’s television should be studied to answer larger questions about the culture, power, and modern self-fashioning of that nation. Abu-Lughod focuses on the Egyptian nation and investigates the elements of developmentalist ideology and the dreams of national progress that dominated Egyptian television in the past. She analyzes the nation’s television broadcasts and highlights the attempt to depict authentic national culture and the intentional strategies for fighting religious extremism.[83]

The main cultural form that binds together the Egyptian nation is, surprisingly, television serials. These serials are melodramatic programs, similar to American soap operas but more closely tied to political and social issues than their Western counterparts. Their contents reflect the changing dynamics of Islam, gender relations, and everyday life in the Middle Eastern nation of Egypt, while at the same time trying to influence and direct these changes.[83]

Another group who studied the impact of television on politics included Holli Semetko and Patti Valenburg. In their studies, they analyzed the framing of press and television news in European politics. For reader clarification, they provided the best working definitions of news frames as defined from a wide range of sources. News frames are "conceptual tools which media and individuals rely on to convey, interpret and evaluate information."[84] They set the parameters "in which citizens discuss public events."[85] They are "persistent selection, emphasis, and exclusion."[86] Framing is selecting "some aspects of a perceived reality" to enhance their salience "in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation."[87] Frames are to help audiences "locate, perceive, identify, and label" the flow of information around themGoffman, 1974, p. 21 and to "narrow the available political alternatives."[88][89]

News frames have what is known as the framing effect. Framing effects are when relevant attributes of a message – such as its organization, content, or structure – make particular thoughts applicable, resulting in their activation and use in evaluations.[90] Framing has shown to have large effects on people's perceptions, and has also been shown to shape public perceptions of political issues or institutions.[89]

Like agenda-setting research, framing analysis focuses on the relationship between public policy issues in the news and the public perceptions of these issues. However, framing analysis "expands beyond agenda-setting research into what people talk or think about by examining how they think and talk about issues in the news."[89][91] The results of Semetko and Valenburg's research indicate that the attribution of responsibility frame was most commonly employed by the news. This particular type of framing focuses on making viewers feel a sense of responsibility, in which they feel bound to perform whatever duties are attached to the given role, and feel a sense of moral accountability for not taking on the role.[89] After understanding the attribution of responsibility frame, it is easy to see why it is such a powerful tool to news programs, as it evokes strong emotions within the viewer.

The Internet - particularly in the form of the World Wide Web (the Web) - has given the world a tool for education, communication, and negotiation in political information and political roles and its use by individuals and organizations has increased and continues to increase, greatly. This rapid increase can be compared to the boom of the television and its impact on politics as a form of media. The Internet also opens up a world of commentary and criticism which in turn allows for new and better ideas to circulate amongst many people.[92] It gives multidirectional communication, which allows people to stay in connection with organizations or people associated with politics more easily.[93] However, there are many controversies regarding the Internet with respect to the PMC as it (the Internet) can encourage and facilitate the practice of providing bits of information extracted from a far wider context or biased information, which leads to public cynicism toward the media.[94]

The relative ease of entry into publishing through Internet/Web channels yields opportunities, for those so inclined, to become, in the extreme, one-person contributors/players, with a foot on both sides of the fence - politics and media - in the PMC (and sometimes information, placed into the public domain through such channels, about a political entity (politician, party etc.), being perhap less than flattering, may be 'adjusted' by one or more other entities (individuals, organizations etc.) with publishing identities that barely, if at all, conceal a relationship with the political entity in question).
[95]

For example, Wikipedia itself is a major global channel, currently being around the eighth most visited website, in 2009 found its objectivity being compromised at the highest levels with a 'conflict of interest' of a sitting member of the influential Arbitration Committee(ArbCom). It was shown that David Boothroyd - a serving Labour Party Councillor for Westminster City
[96]—had gained a seat on the Arbitration Committee under the pseudonym of the Wikipedia account 'Sam Blacketer' and also, under this name, had gone on to make controversial edits to the Wikipedia entry for the then Leader of the Opposition, later Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron. Boothroyd was also found to have operated earlier, before his appointment to the Arbitration Committee, but while an administrator, other contemporary accounts—a practice in Wikipedia known as 'sock puppetry' - enabling the practitioner to give undue weight, through appearing as different identities, to a particular point of view as opposed to representing a neutral point of view (NPOV). Given Wikipedia's presence and influence in the world, the "affair" attracted mainstream media, and other new media attention nationally and internationally,
[97][98][99]
contributing damage to Wikipedia's standing along the way. Boothroyd was forced to step down from the Arbitration Committee, although he claimed he had already asserted his intention to resign.

The impact of the internet on politics has been notable, as this form of media has more current information than others since it is constantly being updated. Another advancement is its capacity to have extensive information in one place, like voting records, periodicals, press releases, opinion polls, policy statements, speeches, etc. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of an election, for example, is more convenient than it has been in the past. Political Information available on the internet covers every major activity of American politics. Users, nonetheless, remain susceptible to bias, especially on websites that represent themselves as objective sources.[94]

E-mail has achieved a large scale of usage amongst numerous levels of government, political groups, and even media companies as a means of communicating with the public and thus plays a significant role in the political-media complex. The boom of e-mail hit the Internet and the public in the mid-1990s as a way to keep in touch with family and friends. Different governments got a hold of this technology, and in 1993 the United States Congress and the White House were using this as communication as a means of communicating with the general public. During the Clinton administration a director for e-mail and electronic publishing was appointed and by the summer of 1993, the White House was receiving 800 e-mails per day. In order to deal with the influx of e-mail a more sophisticated system was put in. In a six-month period, at one point, there were half a million e-mails sent to the president and vice president.[100]

With so many campaigns using the Internet it raises a significant amount of money in a shorter period of time than with any other method. The web sites are set up like advertising sites – there are links to click on to watch ads, information and background on the candidate, photos from the campaign trail, schedules, donation links, etc. E-mail gives a great low-cost way of connecting with the campaign trail and voters.[94]

During the 2008 United States Presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama, the Internet was extensively utilized by both candidates. Facebook, an Internet social network, was used heavily to give people the ability to support their views and share information with their friends. Both sent out messages daily to promote themselves and the issues at hand, for leverage against the other candidate.[citation needed]

Blogs are a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Blogging started to become popular at the start of the millennium, and was used mostly by highly educated, highly paid, males. Around 2004 blogging became more mainstream and was typically used for political interaction. Many political campaigns use this as a stake in monitoring blogs and actively using them to spread information about their candidate.[101]

The Internet creates a space in which people can voice their opinions and discuss political issues under the protection of anonymity. Some discussion forums are actually groups or organizations that set up discussion for a specific purpose about one issue or person in politics. Some problems with discussion forums include the lack of personal contact, which allows people not to take responsibility for posts, such as personal attacks on others.[citation needed] Bias is another issue of online discussion forums because many websites attract like-minded individuals, making it less likely for alternative perspectives to be introduced.[101]

An e-Government is a government that is inter-networked through digital technology for mass media distribution and communication for voters, taxpayers, schools, hospitals, etc. It has been described[according to whom?] as a new way to transform government programs by closing the gap between distance and time. This idea has been said to be a more cost effective and convenient way to form programs around the needs of citizens rather than civil servants.[102]

In perhaps what is the beginning of the first major reappraisal of the relationship between a political elite/class and the media in a major modern Western PMC, with respect to the enervation of representative political and legal processes and the consequent erosion of and dangers to the public interest in a Western democracy, is captured in excerpts from three contributions to an emergency three-hour debate[103] conducted by members of parliament (MPs) in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the afternoon of the 6 July 2011.[improper synthesis?]

We politicians have colluded for far too long with the media: we rely on them, we seek their favour, and we live and we die politically because of what they write and what they show, and sometimes that means we lack the courage or the spine to stand up when wrong has occurred.[104]

As MPs, we depend on the media. We like to be liked by them; we need to be liked by them. We depend on the media, and that applies still more to Governments. It is an unavoidable observation that Parliament has behaved with extraordinary cowardice for many years...[105]

We are faced with a scandal of expanding proportions, including hacking, allegations of interference in police investigations, and claims that payments have been made to officers. To restore faith and trust in the police and the media, we must lock up the guilty, establish a statutory inquiry, shine a cleansing light on the culture of the media and, if necessary, of the police, and implement the reforms necessary to ensure that the privacy of victims and citizens is never intruded on again. It is clear from today’s debate that this is the will of the House, and we are committed to making it happen.[106]

These comments refer to the apparent effects of the relationships between the members of (the UK) parliament and those that form the UK Government, the Metropolitan police and News International (NI [UK subsidiary of News Corporation ]) and the influence, expressed as malign, of the latter organization on the former two institutions.

The debate was precipitated by the type of some of the information procurement methods found to have been used by a major British Sunday newspaper (the title is now shut down) – the News of the World (was owned by NI). Now known as the (News International) ‘phone hacking affair’, the consequences[107] for the British PMC and NI (as part of the world’s second largest media empire after The Walt Disney Company) are likely to be unfolding for some considerable time as new sectors of vulnerable members of British society subjected to the particular malicious practice are brought to light.[citation needed]

The Parliamentary turmoil resulted in the UK government instituting a three-pronged public judicial examination into the relations and interactions between the media and the public, the media and the police and the media and the politicians. Known as the Leveson Inquiry, its findings were published November 29, 2012 based on a spread of around eight months (November 2011 to June 2012) of probing into the relationships. While the Leveson findings are obviously oriented toward the PMC of the UK, some commentators argue that its findings will have global implications through their relevance to similar existing networks in other countries.[8][9][108][109][110]

Naming (as a 'complex') points of intersection and apparent cooperative benefit, to some degree, of diverse, nominally independent, areas of public faced activity puts us in danger of missing a much more fundamental and general insight according to linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky. Such identifiable collaborations/collusions are almost to be expected and are a natural outcome to the working of the 'industrial system,' as it has evolved in the West, having the taxpayer-funded sector at its core (that is as opposed to the contemporary conventional wisdom, with a hard and fast distinction between the state and private sectors - the economist John Kenneth Galbraith has also argued that the "two sectors" represent an "innocent fraud")[111] and has blamed its existence on the "socialization of costs and the privatization of profits".

Chomsky discusses the military-industrial complex (MIC)[112] and argues that its embedded behavior is not just about the "military" but is about ensuring that the modern economy, of which that behavior (emptied of particularly military connotations) is at the heart, is nothing much to do with freedom (of choice) or democracy either.

Using the technology of computing as a prime example, Chomsky notes that about the time Dwight Eisenhower was making his speech about the putative MIC, institutions like Harvard University and his own, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), were working, using government funds (taxpayer dollars), to reduce roomfuls of machinery into a package that could be sold as a mainframe (computer). Reaching that point, project heads began to leave to set up manufacturers. Similarly, established notables like International Business Machines (IBM) were using public funds to advance their technology from punch card sorting to advanced general purpose computers of their own around the beginning of the 1960s. None of this was about 'consumer choice' since the work was being done for government organs such as the National Security Agency (NSA). It was about two and a half decades, the early 1980s, before these 'private tyrannies' were in a position to take all the results of public funding and sell them back, at considerable profit, to the very people who had already paid for them.

Observing the prophets of the 'free market', such as Alan Greenspan, enthusing about the 'marvels of entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice,' Chomsky asserts, in contrast, that the contribution here during the 'costly and risky period of development' was precisely nil, almost the entire burden, without any (democratic) consultation, being placed on the taxpayer (socialized).

Chomsky points to the same script being followed, now, in areas such as biotechnology and neuroscience and why, from the past, we now have such 'goods' as the Internet, telecommunications, lasers etc. While it may be 'nice' to have computers (or be able to command an aircraft by 'thought') the essential point is, assuming there is some real commitment to freedom (of choice) and democracy in the elites and structures of power, given a public, such as those in the 1950s, to ask what they want out of their taxes. Computers in twenty-five years or health care, good schools and jobs today ? This assumes their being informed, in good faith, of matters.

Chomsky summarizes that anybody or anything deeply embedded in the interests of the industrial system, with power (such as the corporations), is 'deathly afraid' of admitting such a state of affairs and that attitudes must be manipulated towards the 'appropriate' outcomes. Such manipulation is often best done in an atmosphere of fear and under pretence of external threat.

Edward S. Herman and Chomsky, together, advanced a 'propaganda model' to accomplish this 'manufacturing consent', showing the ways in which power and money filter the news and enable governments and dominant private interests to integrate the behavior of the citizenry into the structures of the industrial system. Earlier, political writer George Orwell had noted, "All the papers that matter live off their advertisements and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over the news."[113] ('Indirect censorship' obviates the need for obvious coercion.) This observation is at the heart of two of the filters that structure the propaganda model: advertising (of corporations) as the primary source of income for the mass media and the dependence upon information provided by government, business and 'experts' approved and paid for by these primary sources.

Herman and Chomsky see the ideas as being cast as testable hypotheses such that they can be held in the light of corroboration through empirical evidence and not merely as assertions out of the blue. Examination of contemporary developments in the context of the hypotheses is encouraged.

Thus the general and fundamental understanding of the working of the industrial system in the modern economy, 'socialization of costs and privatization of profits', is met with corroboration from the heart of the market system (often called the free market) – a contemporary and 'polite' euphemism for capitalism according to Galbraith - for example, in the near collapse of the global banking system, beginning in 2008, spreading in 2011 to the areas of sovereign debt, requiring almost constant appeal to the 'banker of last resort' - the taxpayer. Under debt restructuring, 'good debt' is returned to private hands as soon as possible and the taxpayer is left saddled with the 'bad debt' which is probably unrecoverable.[114][115][116]

The shadow that the corporations cast on the media through advertising (corroboration of Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model filters through advertising) was illustrated in the closure of News International's 168-year-old flagship Sunday title, the News of the World, when major advertisers boycotted the paper as a consequence of the 'phone hacking scandal' – the corporations, understandably, not wishing to be seen associated with a paper whose production had been based on frequent engagement in serious criminal activity.[117][118]

From Chomsky's perspective, then, whatever set of interactions is being named by the term 'politico-media complex' (PMC) simply instantiates the propaganda model to manufacture consent in the service of the industrial system.

^"Hacking reveals power network". The BBC. September 13, 2011. Retrieved November 15, 2011. The story of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal has revealed a web of links between senior figures within politics, the police and the media.

^Rentoul, John (January 8, 2006). "John Rentoul: Whodunnit? Cameron, of course". The Independent. Retrieved September 21, 2011. The key to understanding the Conservative revival, as it was to understanding the Blair bubble, is to know about the dynamics of the politico-media complex. Cameron wants to be written up as new and exciting. The media want to write him up as new and exciting, because that fits the template into which news reporting either fits or is made to fit.

^ abcdRajagopal, Arvind. "Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India." Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2001.

^The first major consequence being the closure of the 168 year old title of the News of the World from Sunday 10 July 2011

^"Leveson Round-Up: Over Cosy? The Leveson Love Triangle". Media Policy Project. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 2 August 2018. Do the complex relationships of power and reciprocity between the press and other centres of power lead to corruption – if we define corruption as a replacement of an ethic oriented to the public interest with private, self-serving interests?

^"The Phone Hacking Scandal: Global Implications". Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Retrieved 2 August 2018. Its [the Leveson Inquiry] remit is not only to investigate the role of Rupert Murdoch's tabloid newspapers—the News of the World [NoW] and The Sun—in the phone hacking scandal, but to investigate the bribery and corruption of senior police and politicians and the cozy relationship between Murdoch, his newspapers, and the ruling establishment—the unique 'politico-media' complex.

^Bernhut, Stephen (May–June 2006). "An Interview With John Kenneth Galbraith". Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved 29 September 2011. The myth of the two sectors, the public sector and the private sector... at a time when the private sector has taken over big chunks of the public sector, particularly in military operations and armament, defense budget. That's a very fairly central theme.

^Barsamian, David (September–October 2004). "War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies". International Socialist Review (37). Retrieved 29 September 2011. ...the military-industrial complex, as he (Eisenhower) called it, is actually the core of the modern economy. It’s not specifically military.

^Dossani, Sameer (10 February 2009). "Chomsky:Understanding the Crisis -- Markets, the State and Hypocrisy". Foreign Policy in Focus. Retrieved 29 September 2011. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations.

^Pickard, Jim (November 15, 2012). "Warning on £66bn public bank stakes". Financial Times. Retrieved 5 December 2012. Taxpayers may never see the return of the £66bn spent on shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group four years ago, an influential [sic] group of MPs warned on Friday. (registration required)

^Mason, Paul (10 July 2011). "Murdoch: the network defeats the hierarchy". BBC. Retrieved September 19, 2011. The News of the World is closing - at least partly due to a strong campaign to make advertisers drop the title, following the latest phone hacking revelations.